What are you public sector lot up to on Weds then?

[JackanorySFC]

I'm not really sure I would use one or two anecdotes to come to such generalisations, but each to their own.

 

Same advice to Jackanory really, I think she needs to stand up for herself and someone needs to get a grip with the Senior Leadership Team to stamp out these ugly and isolated cases.

 

Appreciate the advice. She is already pretty tough, you have to be to teach to an outstanding standard at a big secondary school in a core subject. She also had no problem with going to the head of one of PGCE schools to complain about her department head - the school head ended up supporting her 100%. However her current department head is leaving after Christmas and is on demob mode, the other teachers are all of "a certain age" baby boomer types that will never be happy or satisfied with anything and really pushed the point of shutting the school down so they could go shopping on pay day! Her colleagues know she can afford it because of the job I do so felt no qualms about pushing that point either....

 

Oh, as for support for the strikers - the buggers have set up a picket outside our flat today, and using a massive sample size of 20, only 25% are beeping their horns and showing support! Case closed ;-)

[um pahars]

When you spend your working days banging on to young people about the importance of attending school and getting qualified, about community values and life not being just about the individual as well as to their parents about not taking them out on holiday during term time and valuing ediucation for what it is. it seems hypocritical to take strike action. So I am in school as are all the other senior staff. No students here so am able to look on here, while I use thetime to catch up on things that get lost in the hurly burly of a normal working day.

 

I don't think many teachers took this decision lightly and I think many have gone on strike with a really heavy heart. The overwhleming majority of teachers have their students wellbeing at the centre of all they do.

 

Some will have to put their love, support and responsibility to these students to one side for a day to think about their own families, whilst others are thinking long term and are concerned how these pay cuts and erosion of benefits will affect the teaching profession (it's ability to recruit and retain staff, morale and ultimately the service provided to future generations of students).

 

Ultimately it is individual choice whether or not to express their individual right to withdraw their labour and you won't find me criticsing colleagues one way or the other. So I'm afraid I do find it somewhat disappointing that a member of a school's senior leadership team feels the need to berate colleagues and subordinates and label them hypocritical.

[CB Saint]

I was merely pointing out that taxpayers effectively fund your higher rate of tax relief.

 

You talk about a 'modest' pension of £20K pa. I wish! The AVERAGE public sector pension is c. £4-5K pa. I worked for the NHS for 18 years, much of it at a senior management level. My pension? Just over £4K pa. Imagine what it would have been if I'd been an average NHS worker - say a medical records clerk.

 

You have to remember that the averages can be distorted by the fact that many consultants and doctors also contribute to the NHS scheme and, given their high salaries (I assume you don't disapprove of those) then of course their pensions will be a lot higher.

 

I would remind you that, even as a pensioner, I contribute towards public sector pensions as I still pay income tax.

 

When will the government allow / publish the audit on the affordability of public sector pension schemes I wonder?

 

The average pension to date would also be pulled down be those who only worked for say 10 years. I would be interested to know what the average penison was of some one who spent their entire career (ie 40 years) in the public sector.

 

wrt the audit, if the results of that stated that the public pensions were unaffordable in the future, would people accept that the pensions would have to be reduced and retirement ages extended, or would they refuse to accept it and demand that they are still honoured.

 

Fwiw I am uncomfortable with the fact that changes can be made retrospectively to someones pension. I can appreciate the sentiment that it wasn't the deal that they signed up for, although the world is a much different place these days. However, why not move to a money purchase scheme for all new entrants - at least we would be able to eventually cap the problem in the long term.

[View From The Top]

When you spend your working days banging on to young people about the importance of attending school and getting qualified, about community values and life not being just about the individual as well as to their parents about not taking them out on holiday during term time and valuing ediucation for what it is. it seems hypocritical to take strike action. So I am in school as are all the other senior staff. No students here so am able to look on here, while I use thetime to catch up on things that get lost in the hurly burly of a normal working day.

 

My wife has Y10-Y11 in and up until yesterday we would have been in until the LEA took the decision to close everything!

[View From The Top]

The average pension to date would also be pulled down be those who only worked for say 10 years. I would be interested to know what the average penison was of some one who spent their entire career (ie 40 years) in the public sector.

 

wrt the audit, if the results of that stated that the public pensions were unaffordable in the future, would people accept that the pensions would have to be reduced and retirement ages extended, or would they refuse to accept it and demand that they are still honoured.

 

Fwiw I am uncomfortable with the fact that changes can be made retrospectively to someones pension. I can appreciate the sentiment that it wasn't the deal that they signed up for, although the world is a much different place these days. However, why not move to a money purchase scheme for all new entrants - at least we would be able to eventually cap the problem in the long term.

 

To the 1st point, I reckon most of us understand the need for change but let's see the evidence. In my case I'm being asked to pay 50% more to get 40% back and work many years more for it based on no evidence that my pension fund is in deficit. If it were just 2 of those 3 most would grumble but most likely understand and accept but with all 3 it does feel as if we are being butt fu cked for bailing out the banks.

 

As for the 2nd point, I think everyone accepts that. Modify for the existing, change for the new.

[Viking Warrior]

Not childish at all Um Pahars your the one that is puerile . Insinuating Im a daily Mail reader.

 

The main issue for me is the loss of public sector jobs and that has now moved to 700k up 300k from what was predicted. so thats about 40% of those striking to day.

 

Im being a realist Um not childish but get yur facts re labelling me as a Dail Mail Reader Im a Herald and and Press and Journal reader for your information

[Gingeletiss]

I've seen them split and not conclusive either way. This one had the piublic down as supporting the strike (61%).

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15910621

 

Like I said, the ones I've seen, then you quote the left wing dog, that is the BBC...lol

[Viking Warrior]

OH and Lord Hutton of Furness led the comission on Public Pension reform

 

what party was he a member of

[Verbal]

Not childish at all Um Pahars your the one that is puerile . Insinuating Im a daily Mail reader.

 

The main issue for me is the loss of public sector jobs and that has now moved to 700k up 300k from what was predicted. so thats about 40% of those striking to day.

 

Im being a realist Um not childish but get yur facts re labelling me as a Dail Mail Reader Im a Herald and and Press and Journal reader for your information

 

So the thing that animates you the most is not the burning issues of today but whether you are or are not a Daily Mail reader?

 

If I may say so, that's a typical DM response, V Dubya.

[View From The Top]

Like I said, the ones I've seen, then you quote the left wing dog, that is the BBC...lol

 

So thick it's scary.

[Verbal]

Like I said, the ones I've seen, then you quote the left wing dog, that is the BBC...lol

 

And every single one of the people questioned were BBC employees on orders to give the 'correct' answers.

 

With all the left-wing conspiracies floating above your head it's amazing you can make any sense at all.

[um pahars]

As for the 2nd point, I think everyone accepts that. Modify for the existing, change for the new.

 

As with most DB schemes, I do think there has to be a review with regards new entrants. Am I right in saying new entrants on already on a different scheme (lower accrual rate??).

 

However, this has to be carefully thought out to ensure that the Teaching Profession can still attract good quality graduates.

 

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against some negotiation and change, it's more to do with the fact that this change has been brought in a rather cavalier fashion and probably for idealogical reasons, not financial.

[um pahars]

Not childish at all Um Pahars your the one that is puerile . Insinuating Im a daily Mail reader.

 

I think you'll find I never suggested you were a Daily Mail reader, merely that your puerile, knee jerk and sensastionalist contributions to the debate were akin to those found in the Daily Mail.

[um pahars]

OH and Lord Hutton of Furness led the comission on Public Pension reform

 

what party was he a member of

 

I think some of what Hutton said was pertinent and thought provoking. However, I also think it is fair to say that both sides are able to pull selected parts from the report, repackage them and produce something to support their stance.

 

Hutton certainly didn't suggest what is being presented by the Government in their current offer, nor did he back the Union's current position.

[badgerx16]

Hutton certainly didn't suggest what is being presented by the Government in their current offer, nor did he back the Union's current position.

Correct - Hutton pointed out that some schemes, including the LGPS, were in funds and did not present any form of significant risk. ( Maybe there should be an independent audit of the public sector schemes ).

[CB Saint]

As with most DB schemes, I do think there has to be a review with regards new entrants. Am I right in saying new entrants on already on a different scheme (lower accrual rate??).

 

However, this has to be carefully thought out to ensure that the Teaching Profession can still attract good quality graduates.

 

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against some negotiation and change, it's more to do with the fact that this change has been brought in a rather cavalier fashion and probably for idealogical reasons, not financial.

 

Why not do away with final / average salary altogether for new entrants. Fair enough the accrual may be lowered now, but what happens in 30 years time when we are all living another 20 years longer. We will be in the same boat.

[trousers]

I think some of what Hutton said was pertinent and thought provoking. However, I also think it is fair to say that both sides are able to pull selected parts from the report, repackage them and produce something to support their stance.

 

Hutton certainly didn't suggest what is being presented by the Government in their current offer, nor did he back the Union's current position.

 

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=17455

 

Hutton: unions ''mistaken'' over pensions

15 September 2011

 

The trade unions that are planning a series of strikes in protest at the reforms to public sector pensions are doing so on false grounds and being "fundamentally dishonest", according to Lord Hutton, the ex Labour Cabinet minister who produced the report that the government is acting on.

 

Hutton said the unions don't appear to understand that a table in the report that seemed to show the cost of funding pensions would come down over the next 50 years was based on the assumption that government changes – which the unions oppose – would go through. These changes are that public sector workers will work longer and pay more into their pensions.

 

But the unions are arguing that the reforms are not necessary and that without them the pensions would still be affordable – and they are quoting Hutton's report to back up their stance. In particular, they are pointing to the table that indicates the future cost of public sector pensions as a share of national income would fall from 1.9 per cent in 2011 to 1.4 per cent by 2060.

 

Hutton told The Guardian: "If I thought that the current arrangements were fine and didn't need changing I wouldn't have made 27 recommendations for changes.

 

"People are looking at that table in my report and saying that as a share of GDP the cost of public service pensions are likely to fall over the years without understanding the context. I say we shouldn't bet the house on this. There are many economic assumptions contained in that table, not least that the reforms previously agreed under the 'cap and share' system are successfully implemented.

 

"It's fundamentally dishonest for people to cite those figures and reach the conclusion in my report that everything is fine. That completely misreads the entire report. I was trying to talk about sustainability. That can be measured as total cost proportion of GDP. Affordability is a different judgement, a political judgement. The economics, looking at the future costs of pensions is not. That's objective. The thing that is wrong is for people to say that because there is this one table predicting it to fall over 50 years that the reforms are wrong. It includes the assumptions that people work longer and pay more."

 

He went on: "If government were to implement what I suggested, it would mean a better chance of hitting the figures in the graph. It basically assumed the proposals I suggested were introduced. If we don't implement they won't fall as quickly. If we don't do the reform we won't hit the numbers.

 

"There is every good reason that without long term reform the future sustainability is in doubt and that is because of rising longevity. Unless we are able to pay a lot more or work a bit longer we are going to have a problem. It's plain common sense."

 

Hutton also told the Financial Times: "The fundamental mistake the trades unions are making is that the chart assumes that the reforms have taken place. They are the post reform costs. That chart does not show that public sector pensions are sustainable as they stand. People are choosing the facts that most suit them from the report and then torturing the data until it confesses."

 

He added: "[The unions are objecting to] things that [they] agreed to before as necessary changes. What I did was build them directly into the schemes."

Edited 30 November, 2011 by trousers

[View From The Top]

Why not do away with final / average salary altogether for new entrants. Fair enough the accrual may be lowered now, but what happens in 30 years time when we are all living another 20 years longer. We will be in the same boat.

 

I guess, with teaching, it's about balance. God knows is hard enough getting good science and maths graduates as it is as the rewards are so much greater elsewhere and taking away the chance of a decent pension may impact still further.

 

Despite the spin any government may put on it, that's the reality in large swathes of metropolitan England.

[um pahars]

Why not do away with final / average salary altogether for new entrants. Fair enough the accrual may be lowered now, but what happens in 30 years time when we are all living another 20 years longer. We will be in the same boat.

 

How would this affect recruitment of teachers going forward?? Should pay be increased to attract them, more Golden Hellos???? How do we manage staff doing same jobs for differing rewards???

 

All not unassailable, but in need of a proper review and debate, not Danny Alexander saying here's what the Goverment are implementing in order to meet a short term deficit reduction target (which they have now accepted they won't meet)

[trousers]

http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=18198

 

Union pension spin ignores the big picture

 

30 November 2011

 

David Davison feels ''immensely sad'' that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of public sector pension provision

 

The trade union Unite has published a 'Dossier of hypocrisy' which rightly highlights a disconnect between the government's desire to reduce the level of public sector pensions and the rather generous pensions payable to the very cabinet ministers proposing the change. Few would argue that MPs benefits are excessive and not having made any pre-emptive moves to reduce their value could undermine the strength of the arguments the government are putting forward to address the long term issue over public sector pensions.

 

The document points out how 'Unite supports good pensions for all workers including MPs, what we don't support is a cabinet of millionaires attacking the very modest pensions of the men and women who care for our sick, teach our children and keep our streets safe.'

 

This statement raises some interesting points. Is it purely the fact that the proposals are being made by 'millionaires' that make them unsupportable? I somehow doubt that all the cabinet ministers mentioned would fit in to this category. It also ignores the crucial point that the steps being taken to make public sector pensions sustainable are based squarely upon independent proposals made by the former Labour pensions minister John Hutton.

 

Hutton's proposals sought to put in place a sustainable framework to protect the value of pensions for a very significant proportion of the people highlighted as being at risk. While I agree there should be a major reduction in the pensions offered to MPs, the impact of even a significant reduction on 600 people will not have the same financial impact as a more modest reduction for hundreds of thousands of public sector workers across the nation.

 

Another problem is the term 'gold-plated' when used to refer to pensions. The focus here seems to be based upon the amount payable rather than on the fact that no matter what the state of the scheme or the wider financial environment the pension will be paid in full and the implicit funding risk this entails.

 

It would be interesting if the same people were asked if they considered a pension fund to the value of £150,000-£200,000, with two thirds of this provided by the state was considered excessive in comparison to those provided in the private sector. This is, by the way, the equivalent fund value required to produce a £6,000 pension, index linked with spouses protection in a private scheme. The surveyor may have received a slightly different answer.

 

The government has already yielded significant ground on this issue, possibly too much ground. If we see little or no change on public sector pensions where does this leave us? The government were seeking something sustainable for the future but a continual watering down of the proposals just means we're likely to be back in the same place in a few years, shoring up huge problems which will be left to future generations to sort out. Ultimately the money has to be found from somewhere – it will mean further reductions in education, police, health budgets or higher taxes. How many public sector workers will be happy if they keep their pension but lose their job?

 

The Unison document suggests that the government must 'stop trying to turn people against their neighbours' but isn't that the very thing they are doing through their stance on pension reform? Failure to compromise on this issue risks further alienation and disconnection between the public sector and their private sector counterparts, many of whom can only dream of having such generous pension provision.

 

For the unions to deny that change is necessary to create sustainable pensions for the future, seems totally divorced from the environment we are faced with. This is a generational, not class, issue. It's about how much we're prepared to mortgage our children's future to maintain current levels of pension benefits.

 

I look at my young sons and their friends and I feel immensely sad that the leaders of the trade union movement and successive governments have failed to get to grips with the unsustainable cost of pension provision. Continued failure to address this issue will saddle future generations with a legacy of debt. While I would hope that reason may prevail and we will avoid this situation, unfortunately I'm not hopeful.

 

David Davison is head of public sector, charity and not for profit practice at Spence and Partners

[CB Saint]

How would this affect recruitment of teachers going forward?? Should pay be increased to attract them, more Golden Hellos???? How do we manage staff doing same jobs for differing rewards???

 

All not unassailable, but in need of a proper review and debate, not Danny Alexander saying here's what the Goverment are implementing in order to meet a short term deficit reduction target (which they have now accepted they won't meet)

 

Perhaps pay should be increased, at least we pay for it in the here and now and don't have some open ended liability coming at us for future generations to pay.

[exit2]

How would this affect recruitment of teachers going forward?? Should pay be increased to attract them, more Golden Hellos???? How do we manage staff doing same jobs for differing rewards???

 

All not unassailable, but in need of a proper review and debate, not Danny Alexander saying here's what the Goverment are implementing in order to meet a short term deficit reduction target (which they have now accepted they won't meet)

 

Final Salary pensions are unsustainable, it wont affect the recruitment of teachers going forward if it is changed now. Out of Interest Steve, how much percentage wise do you pay into your salary each month? and what return will you get?

I look at my step father who was a teacher and has been retired for 20 years. His pension is circa £17k a year!

[um pahars]

Perhaps pay should be increased, at least we pay for it in the here and now and don't have some open ended liability coming at us for future generations to pay.

 

Well we're currently going through an effective 4 year pay freeze (cutting teaching salaries by up to 20%) so how that readjusts itself will be interesting.

 

I fear that that pay cut combined with a pension contributions increase, having to teach longer and lower end pension may mean the teaching profession will struggle to attract high calibre candidates, which may in turn impact on the future prosperity of future generations. It just seems to be policy on the hoof, with little or no regard to what the impact might be.

[um pahars]

Final Salary pensions are unsustainable, it wont affect the recruitment of teachers going forward if it is changed now.

 

Of course it will (although I accept to what extent is up for debate). The salary, pension, holidays, working conditions, status of profession etc are all factors when considering going in to the profession.

 

I certainly believed that a decent pension was a part of the fair trade off for the lower salary I would be earning when I changed careers.

[View From The Top]

Final Salary pensions are unsustainable, it wont affect the recruitment of teachers going forward if it is changed now. Out of Interest Steve, how much percentage wise do you pay into your salary each month? and what return will you get?

I look at my step father who was a teacher and has been retired for 20 years. His pension is circa £17k a year!

 

And your experience of attempting to recruit high caliber maths and science teachers is what exactly?

 

Hard enough now and it's going to get an awful lot worse.

[trousers]

I certainly believed that a decent pension was a part of the fair trade off for the lower salary I would be earning when I changed careers.

 

We've all known for years, nay decades, that people are living longer, so we've always had the knowledge that pensions would have to be reformed at some stage. Some might say that to assume the pension you originally signed up for at the time wouldn't need to evolve at some point in the future to accomodate the changes in human life expectancy was avoiding looking at the big picture. Some might say that, some might not. But we didn't need to be an economist 10 - 20 years ago to foresee what would need to happen to pensions in the future. Successive governments (red and blue) simply put off the inevitable until it could be put off no more.

Edited 30 November, 2011 by trousers

[Viking Warrior]

Verbal Thanks for your kind words as usual. For your knee jerk response Im not getting animated about refering to the daily mail insinuation by um. I mentioned that because some poster including yourself seem to state that if you have certain views or values you must be a DM reader

My main gripe is the fact that I am angry is that in April I may well be made redundant as part of the tough times tough choices happening througout the scottish public sector. i would prefer public sector unions to channel their energies into that cause more than some misleading information on LGPS and pensions for teachers.

 

There are far more important issues facing the public sector than the current pensions debate.

[Viking Warrior]

Um pahars I agree with you about the four year pay freeze (3 years in Scotland)

The unions turned down a 2.5% pay freeze in 2009/10 for Local Government workers as it wasnt enough

As they turned it down the Scottish governement awarded/imposed a .65% increase. Not one of the TU's finest decisions

It wil be interesting to see what happens once the initial three year pay freeze is unfrozen.

[trousers]

I've just noticed that the BBC have replaced their usual schedule with a double bill of 'Only Fools and Horses' this afternoon.

 

Someone at the beeb has a wry sense of humour

 

(not that I'm sitting at home watching TV when I should be working of course....)

Edited 30 November, 2011 by trousers

[dune]

Right - off I go to our local march. Even though I'm not affected directly.

 

I'll keep an eye out for an old bird with a zimmer frame on News At Ten.

[dune]

When you spend your working days banging on to young people about the importance of attending school and getting qualified, about community values and life not being just about the individual as well as to their parents about not taking them out on holiday during term time and valuing ediucation for what it is. it seems hypocritical to take strike action. So I am in school as are all the other senior staff. No students here so am able to look on here, while I use thetime to catch up on things that get lost in the hurly burly of a normal working day.

 

Please join me in taking your hat off to Winnersaint. It just shows that not all Public Sector types are lazy militants.

[trousers]

Here's an extract of an email I sent to my son's school 2 days ago:

 

Please could you provide me with the following figures:

a) the percentage of school staff that voted in the strike ballot

 

b) the percentage of school staff that voted to strike (including those who didn't vote in the ballot)

 

c) the percentage of school staff who, in light of the strike vote, have decided to go on strike on Wednesday (including those who originally voted against strike action and those that didn't vote)

 

d) how many staff you are short of in order to provide a "safe site"

 

And here's the reply I just received from the headmistress:

 

Thank you for your email. I am afraid that I am not able to comment on many of your questions as that information is not available to me. Here are my responses in the order you posed your questions:

a.) Private and confidential – not able to comment

 

b.) Private and confidential- not able to comment.

c.) Private and confidential- not able to comment.

d.) Private and confidential as it is not just teaching unions which have been balloted to take industrial action. Releasing this information would break confidentiality.

Erm....what's to hide? I wasn't asking for names of who voted and who didn't, just percentages. I thought they'd be really keen to share the figures in order to highlight the high level of support for the strikes. How is hiding under the convenient "Private and Confidential" unbrella going to engender support from the general public?

[badgerx16]

Please join me in taking your hat off to Winnersaint. It just shows that not all Public Sector types are lazy militants.

 

Multiple choice question for you Dune old dear - am I in work ? Yes or No ?

[bridge too far]

I've just noticed that the BBC have replaced their usual schedule with a double bill of 'Only Fools and Horses' this afternoon.

 

Someone at the beeb has a wry sense of humour

 

(not that I'm sitting at home watching TV when I should be working of course....)

 

Back briefly to feed the cat......

 

There is a double bill of OFAH every afternoon ATM. Sorry to rain on your parade.

[badgerx16]

Trousers,( post #333), I am not sure the Head would necessarily have access to the data you are querying in A, B, and C.

[trousers]

Back briefly to feed the cat......

 

There is a double bill of OFAH every afternoon ATM. Sorry to rain on your parade.

 

Ah. When did they start that? I'd "work from home" more often if I'd known!

[trousers]

Trousers,( post #333), I am not sure the Head would necessarily have access to the data you are querying in A, B, and C.

 

How would she be able to make an informed decision on whether to close the school if she had no idea of how many of her staff were not turning up for work? Unless that decision is taken for her by a higher authority?

 

Whether it's her decision to conceal the figures or the union's (?) I still don't understand what anyone has to hide.

[badgerx16]

How would she be able to make an informed decision on whether to close the school if she had no idea of how many of her staff were not turning up for work? Unless that decision is taken for her by a greater authority?

 

Whether it's her decision to conceal the figures or the union's (?) I still don't understand what anyone has to hide.

 

She has the right to ask, but the staff have the right to not reply. Generally advice would be given by the Local Education Authority.

[dune]

Can all mad cat women please refrain from posting on this thread. Thanks.

[TheCholulaKid]

I'll keep an eye out for an old bird with a zimmer frame on News At Ten.

 

hahahahahahahahahahahaha................

[TheCholulaKid]

Can all mad cat women please refrain from posting on this thread. Thanks.

 

hahahahahahahahahahaha...........................

[trousers]

She has the right to ask, but the staff have the right to not reply. Generally advice would be given by the Local Education Authority.

 

All fair enough but I don't see why anyone involved would want to cover up the stats?

 

In a general election I don't need to know who voted for which party but I still get an overview of how many peopele voted for who.

 

Why the closed shop?

 

Edit: I'm sure if the figures had been really good they'd be shouting them from the rooftops... ;-)

[dune]

Ooops wrong thread.

 

Can all mad cat women please feel free to continue posting. Apologies.

[Jillyanne]

Can all mad cat women please refrain from posting on this thread. Thanks.

 

I don't know anything about the state of the economy or public sector pensions but I do love little kittens, they're so soft and fluffy.

[dune]

I don't know anything about the state of the economy or public sector pensions but I do love little kittens, they're so soft and fluffy.

 

[dune]

Multiple choice question for you Dune old dear - am I in work ? Yes or No ?

 

Judging by the fact you've been posting on here all day, and based on the fact you are probably considerably over weight and thus loathed to use your chubby little legs, i'd say your sat at your desk eating a big mac.

[Verbal]

Here's an extract of an email I sent to my son's school 2 days ago:

 

Please could you provide me with the following figures:

a) the percentage of school staff that voted in the strike ballot

 

b) the percentage of school staff that voted to strike (including those who didn't vote in the ballot)

 

c) the percentage of school staff who, in light of the strike vote, have decided to go on strike on Wednesday (including those who originally voted against strike action and those that didn't vote)

 

d) how many staff you are short of in order to provide a "safe site"

 

And here's the reply I just received from the headmistress:

 

Thank you for your email. I am afraid that I am not able to comment on many of your questions as that information is not available to me. Here are my responses in the order you posed your questions:

a.) Private and confidential – not able to comment

 

b.) Private and confidential- not able to comment.

c.) Private and confidential- not able to comment.

d.) Private and confidential as it is not just teaching unions which have been balloted to take industrial action. Releasing this information would break confidentiality.

Erm....what's to hide? I wasn't asking for names of who voted and who didn't, just percentages. I thought they'd be really keen to share the figures in order to highlight the high level of support for the strikes. How is hiding under the convenient "Private and Confidential" unbrella going to engender support from the general public?

 

So why do you want to know?

[trousers]

So why do you want to know?

 

Why do you want to know why I want to know?

 

Your go...

[badgerx16]

Judging by the fact you've been posting on here all day, and based on the fact you are probably considerably over weight and thus loathed to use your chubby little legs, i'd say your sat at your desk eating a big mac.

 

BMI is bang in the middle of what it should be, salad for lunch - as usual, and off to the gym at 15:30 - once the shift has finished for the day.

 

So I'll give you 1/4 for trying.

[Verbal]

Verbal Thanks for your kind words as usual. For your knee jerk response Im not getting animated about refering to the daily mail insinuation by um. I mentioned that because some poster including yourself seem to state that if you have certain views or values you must be a DM reader

My main gripe is the fact that I am angry is that in April I may well be made redundant as part of the tough times tough choices happening througout the scottish public sector. i would prefer public sector unions to channel their energies into that cause more than some misleading information on LGPS and pensions for teachers.

 

There are far more important issues facing the public sector than the current pensions debate.

 

I'm sorry to hear that VW. So interlinked are the private and public sectors (contrary to some dinosaurs on here) that the severity of the cuts will inevitably destroy jobs - and a few people's lives. So yes, there are large issues, aside from pensions. However, the pensions battle is part of a wider struggle that's gone on since the capitalistic year dot. Reasonable terms and conditions of employment, where they exist, are usually there because someone has fought for them, not because some altruistic magnate has thought 'ooh, I have way too much money, I'll distribute it among the people who created the wealth in the first place.' The pensions fight is just one more skirmish in that tradition.